Gwendolyn:He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.

Did the point completely go over your head, or did you duck att the last minute?

It's not whether or not he has the money, it's the stupidity of him having to pay her for child support when he actually supports the child. She's trying to use this child support as her sole income because she's too useless to be bothered to get a job.

In essence, he is employing her as an unfit parent.

Example: My wife has custody of my stepsons, their dad has visitation, same scenario. In the real world, that means that HE pays my wife to help raise the two sons they had together. If this were Jon Cryer's situation, her ex would be unemployed, and instead of receiving child support to help raise the boys, she would instead be paying him money.

/California has all kinds of farked up laws regarding child support, divorce, etc...

Gwendolyn:He is paying .07% of his income from Two and a Half Men a month to help maintain a home for his son to visit and who may be placed back there at any time. That's like a guy who makes $60,000 handing over $35 each month. I don't think that's completely unreasonable.

It certainly is unreasonable. The "he's rich, so it's ok" defense just doesn't cut it. Can he afford to pay the money? Certainly. No one is arguing it's going to make him poor. That doesn't make it reasonable. The idea that it costs 96K per year simply to "maintain a home" that the kid sees maybe one day a month is lunacy.

This is an absolutely clear case of a person living off the money of someone else because she's too lazy to do anything for herself. Being enabled by the courts is adding insult to injury.

Mangoose:There are no specific stipulations about looking for work and receiving any form of support payment.

Perhaps there should be? I have no problem with child support, even if it is used to maintain the household to some degree. But when the non-custodial parent is still receiving child support, and is clearly doing nothing on her own to support her household, then something is clearly wrong and needs to change.

She needs to get a job. If she were at least trying to work I wouldn't have too much of a problem with this, in the long run. But she's clearly a deadbeat.

The best day of Jon Cryer's life will be when his kid turns 18, and he no longer owes a dime to his Ex.

SauceIT:jst3p:The only guys I know personally who feel like they get shafted by the system allowed it to happen by not asserting and/or fighting for their rights.

FARK YOU! Going through some seriously biased crap in both CT and MA courts. If things are better in CO, great for you but don't, for one second, think that applies everywhere or that men griping about being shafted is their fault.

So what is it with you? Willfully ignorant or just trolling?

Him and Mike Chewbacca's current SOs are standing over them with stick in hand.

jst3p:The only guys I know personally who feel like they get shafted by the system allowed it to happen by not asserting and/or fighting for their rights.

FARK YOU! Going through some seriously biased crap in both CT and MA courts. If things are better in CO, great for you but don't, for one second, think that applies everywhere or that men griping about being shafted is their fault.

people:The vast majority of men are not deadbeats. A large percentage of the ones that are are basically destitute.

The courts' logic (and I use that term loosely) is they won't reduce child support when a man's income is lower because his potential is all that matters. The courts refuse to take into account economic reality so getting a reduction because your income has been reduced through no fault of your own is pretty much impossible. The courts have even gone so far as to uphold child support on the homeless.

Turn it around and you see how unfair it is. A woman who can afford the payments, but simply doesn't bother (usually to punish the man) is almost never held accountable.

I am always boggled at the lack of dignity some people have when they think their ex-spouse should pay for for everything like they were a child just because the relationship ended. Be a grown up. Have some respect for yourself.

jst3p:Show me a case where the father has custody or even joint custody, the mother has greater income and she does not pay child support, then you will have a point. Show me more than one and you might have a valid point.

This is the easiest argument I have ever had

First google search

First hitE. For cases initiated between 1989 and 1992,94.5% of mothers with primary placement are awarded child support awards while only 41.9% of fathers with primary placement are awarded support awards. (Table 14)

Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--That's the crazy part right there. But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

Would the judge laugh him out of court or toss him in jail? I can't decide.

Well, in my jurisdiction, the judge would apply the child support guideline calculation, as the law requires. If the other spouse presented a vocational expert who could opine to a reasonable degree of certainty as to what jobs were available to the unemployed or underemployed spouse and what he or she could earn, then the judge could impute income to that spouse prior to applying the guideline calculation.

He is paying .07% of his income from Two and a Half Men a month to help maintain a home for his son to visit and who may be placed back there at any time. That's like a guy who makes $60,000 handing over $35 each month. I don't think that's completely unreasonable.

Mangoose:Child support can include helping a non-custodial parent maintain an adequate residency for interactions with the child, or for future interactions with the child.

But in this case, it is defacto permanent alimony, despite the fact she has re-married and divorced since. She refuses to even try to work, hasn't worked in 6 years, and admits she lives beyond the means even Cryer's $8,000/month "child support" provides (she claims her monthly expenses are $13,000/month).

The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be Jon Cryer. While well-paid and technically successful, he's never been a break-out star, despite his talent. He's never gotten leading roles worth a damn. You could even argue that he lucked into a hit series, without which he'd be on some "Where Are They Now?"-show.

Couple all that with this clear travesty of justice, and it's obvious. It sucks balls to be Jon Cryer.